War Metal Wiki talk:Projects
Deck Building Revamp I would like to open talks with our new regulars about revamping and updating the deck building section. The mission strategy and achievement sections are getting too big for the bottom template. Several deck ideas are slightly outdated and the deck building section (in general) has a few pages with too many deck templates listed. To start ideas on standardization: New Deck Building Proposal I think the wiki has grown enough and has enough templates, statistics and general information that the paragraphs designed for new players is not needed. Skill pages are now updated with graphics and a chart describing abilities and so forth. I think we can delete it. (Basic Strategy/Advanced Strategy) I propose there to be Six (Seven Technically) links on the front page of deck building page: *Pure Decks **Imperial Decks **Raider Decks **Bloodthirsty Decks **Xeno Decks **Righteous Decks *PVP **Pure PVP **Dual Faction Decks **Multi-Faction Decks **Spam (can be linked here) *Mission Decks **Mission 10 **Mission 28 **Mission 41 **Mission 66 **Mission 83 **Mission 90 **Imperial Traitors **Bloodthirsty Nest **Xeno Invasion **Homeland Defenders **Halcyon's Elite **Creature Combo **Displaced Raiders **Corrupted Forces **Mutant Bloodthirsty **Bloody Raiders **Vengeful Righteous **Imperial Purists **Night of Terror *Raid Decks **Arctis Vanguard **Xeno Walker **Siege on Kor **Imperial Purger **Enclave Flagship **Oluth **Tartarus Swarm **Behemoth **Miasma **Blightbloom **Gore Typhon *Achievement (Strategy) **Slow Roll **Skill Connoisseur **One-Hit Kill **Deny Support **Annihilator Achievements **Speedy Achievements **Reputation Grinding **Gold Grinding **Common Theme **True Valor **EXTREME Overkill!!! **Against the Odds **Their Time Will Come *Sealed Tournament (Tips) **Sealed Gold **Sealed Enclave **Sealed Gold/Enclave **Sealed Nexus **Sealed Blight **Sealed Blight/Nexus **Sealed Purity Under notes I would like to have a small walkthrough on adding graphics, and step by step instructions on how to add a deck and our Standardization rules. Mission Decks/Strategy: This page is big enough that we can give it its own page. Adding in the ending mission of each map. Achievement Strategy: This page is big enough to warrant its own page. We should write up a deck and strategy for all but the (Use this ability 5x) In Closing: This isn't just tweaking a template or improving the looks of a page, so I would like to open discussion on it. We would need to make it a beautiful front page and split that monster of a template down to each section for this change. I also want to have a "Learn how to" section under notes on the front page of Deck Building. (Uploading graphics, Deck Templates, NavBox's etc) Reply Deck Building Proposal Honestly, up to now I had pretty much written off the deck building section due to its poor organization. Frankly I think a lot of the existing material is bad advice and/or bad writing and should be axed. I would suggest one navbox for the top-level organization containing links to the main pages for each deck category, and a second navbox for each deck category. Thoughts on specific categories: I would categorize decks based on purpose, not composition--thus, no categories based on playing mono or rainbow, or spamming, as these are means, not ends. In particular this would mean no "Pure Decks" category. The reasoning is that few people think, "I would like to build a mono Imperial deck today," rather, they think, "I would like to build a deck for Mission 89, and it turns out that a mono Imperial spam deck does the best." * PvP ** Defense ** Manual Fight ** Auto Fight ** Manual Surge ** Auto Surge (feasible?) ** Constructed Tournament * Mission Decks ** Organize by mission ** Give gold and reputation grinding missions a more prominent place * Raid Decks ** Organize by raid * Achievement Decks ** Organize by achievement * Sealed Decks ** Organize by tournament type --Evil4Zerggin 15:45, September 30, 2011 (UTC) I agree that that would be a better format. Any ideas for main page layout? (Ya I wrote a ton of that stuff a week before Nexus came out, then we got busy doing that and standardization, then I was on hiatus. It's a dinasour atm) Shadowmaru 16:28, September 30, 2011 (UTC) Veteran/Newbie * I think gold/reputation grinding should be at the top of the missions section (or maybe its own category completely with gold grinding at the top?) These are, after all, the most-played missions. * One thing I have a hard time getting a handle for as a veteran is how quickly a new player can progress through missions without having the gold and cards from a couple months' grinding and raiding in between each set's missions. I think this gets at another factor besides deck quality. We might consider thinking about two types of players: ** The veteran. These consist of the more dedicated and experienced players who aren't independently wealthy in real life. We can assume they own one copy of Dracorex and probably Yurich, but no other WB cards. They probably have a few copies of all Standard and Enclave rare cards, all free Reward cards, several copies of the best gold-buyable Reward cards and tournament cards, and can afford to spend a several thousand gold if the situation warrants it. So even here there are limits--no Grim Spectre or 10x Cycle Mech even if, for some reason, the mission is best played with them. ** The newbie. This player unlocked the mission/raid/tournament, etc. in question without much chance to grind or raid in between. You can probably expect a decent supply of Standard commons and uncommons, and maybe one of each rare and reputation reward on the way there. Recommendations will probably involve a lot of free reward cards, Irradiated Infantry, and Trident (which solve a lot of problems at least decently well anyhow), or perhaps to come back later. Veteran/Newbie Reply I tried to do beginner and advanced categories like your veteran and newbie it didn't really work. I think we should make the main decks "common" the link any decks like spam Reapers/Pummeller/Sharpshooter etc. Gold edition and Enclave spam is ok. I think plenty of people have bought those. (They can sub something if they dont have 10 vampires.) We don't actually need a 99% effective deck. Just something that works. The closest thing I've come to keeping that Veteran/Newbie trend is in pvp. Promos and all reward cards can be used no worries. That can be defined in the Standards section as well. (We just don't need five pages of it.) Shadowmaru 01:49, October 1, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't mean putting them in different categories--I meant just as an idea towards how many decks we should include for each mission/raid. Basically I think it's better to have two high-end decks and one cheap deck or so than all high-end decks. --Evil4Zerggin 01:59, October 1, 2011 (UTC) Mission Tables Someone edited one of the mission tables to put in values for grinding ratios. I had read up on wiki editing and learned about the calculation capabilities of "expr". So, I had started updating the mission tables on the missions page with expressions to calculate the grinding ratios. Now that I've seen the gold grinding page, this should save having to repeat the information on that page; perhaps reciprocal links would suffice. Slivicon 22:33, September 30, 2011 (UTC) Mission Tables Reply Thanks for putting it in the comment section! Shadowmaru 01:49, October 1, 2011 (UTC) Current Projects I am currently revamping the main links. I believe they are coming together nicely (at least the first level, I'm not done going to each individual page and cleaning them up yet.) * Gold Grinding and Rep Grinding need better deck suggestions. **Hakdo:Or rather, more accessible. **Promo cards: 1 is too many. I have to say we should assume people to have never obtained a War Bond at all. **Nexus cards, Blight cards, Purity cards: Limit use of them to only those being rewarded through missions. 1 more copy than rewarded amount is too many, again because they cost Bonds. **Raid rewards: 1 is too many. I have to say we should assume people to have never joined a successful Raid at all. **Faction rewards: 1 is too many. I have to say we should assume people to have never joined a Faction at all. **Rep rewards: The following are acceptable on spam amounts (they will be unlocked on your way of fighting through main Missions): ***Impulse Walker ***Moloch ***Fortified Extractor ***Ghost ***Assembly Plant ***Vorpal Tank ***Irradiated Infantry ***Sky Watcher ***Cypher ***Exhaust ***Lumbering Ogre ***Onslaught Lead ***Grenadier ***Repenter ***Captor ***Righteous Punisher ::The following are acceptable, but decks using them need to have 1% better win rate than without them: ***Eva ***Dalia ::For others, 1 is too many. **Side Mission rewards, Achievement rewards: Again, decks need to provide more than 1% better winrate if included these cards than if excluded, PER CARD. That is, I need 3% better win rate for using LoT, Gorivore and Razogoth's Heir in a deck, 2% if the deck is for M91+ (LoT is from finishing M90). **Arena rewards: Not a problem for me, since Arena grinding costs neither Energy nor Stamina. Hakdo 03:42, November 9, 2011 (UTC) * The main deckbuilding page needs an overhaul. (I want those seven links there) * I need to edit the deck building navbox more. * If someone is creative they can make the new deckbuilding layout. (Front Page) * I plan on adding a comment section somewhere on the main page, asking non-editors to post everything on the talk page. Then we can post it to the page by standards with stats if need be. * Still working through how many decks should be displayed and how many linked. (Making pages for all the decks will take a bit.) Deck Building Standardization Ideas My concerns would be surrounding rules/standards being put in place prior to any initiative to make changes, to avoid input from the community going off in different directions and also for editors to be on the same wavelength when it comes to knowing how to edit content. So, I would like to see decisions be made in the following areas: *If strategies are broken into sections/sub-sections, put limits on what is considered a strategy, to keep pages consistent in format, layout and expected content. Rather than having things like "jam strategy", "anti-air strategy", etc. for some raids/missions and not others, make a standard strategy rule/standard, for example: **Auto (use of deck template required; if for a mission, name should start with "Anti-Mission X: deck_name"; if for a raid, name should start with "Anti-Raid_Name: deck_name"; if for widespread use, perhaps it should be it's own page/template and then transcluded wherever it is used. Also, test results using the simulator and test results table I started be required - perhaps the table should be a template) **Manual (use of deck template required; same naming as Auto; simulator test results optional, but not really a big pointer as tests are auto; Priority/Order of card play required, following a standard format - table, bulleted list, whatever, just define it beforehand; Additional strategy notes should be limited to a short paragraph and should not contain personal opinions that are arguable and not include any "statistics" without appropriate "proof". Things like "This deck on manual works for me 100%" simply should not be there; stick to facts, make recommendations, but let readers draw their own conclusions about the capabilities of your deck. *Numbers of decks in a page/section: Limits should be clear and pre-defined, such as perhaps 3 auto decks and 3 manual decks, with links to a related auto page and related manual page for additional decks. If "better" decks are found, the top 3 of each should be on the page and the others bumped down. A limit of something like 5 decks could be placed on the related pages, with the bottom one getting bumped off if better ones appear (domino effect). Determining what is "better" is easy with simulator tests on an auto deck. Determining what is "better" for a manual deck is harder. Different editors will have different ideas of what is "better". If someone could come up with a formula for weighting different factors of a manual deck (cost of cards, wb/gold, difficulty in getting cards, high mission reward/high raid honour reward, etc.), then we could post that as the calculator to use to give a manual deck a weighted score that all editors would accept. I think that's all I can think of for input at the moment, I'll post again if I think of other things. Basically, my main thoughts when it comes to anything on the Wiki as a new editor, is that rules/standards be put in place so that editors have something to reference when making edits. If too much is based on opinion/experience, well, how do new editors like myself know what to do? Slivicon 18:34, September 30, 2011 (UTC) Deck Building Standardization Ideas Reply A deck building standards page will be made eventually, keep jotting down your thoughts here. Official Editing and Templates Guidelines Page It seems standards for editing and such are being established, and that is great; however, most of these things occur in the forums or talk pages or the like, which more casual users are not likely to see (not to mention they might be confusing at first). As such, I believe a page detailing editing standards and common templates, featured in a moderately prominent location, would be a helpful guide to contributors. Does anyone else think this a good idea? Anakin2177 18:44, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Agreed, for what it's worth. Slivicon 21:55, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Probably. I'm fairly sure I can handle Tyrant card pages and War Metal units (although Hakdo will likely have to contribute his newer templates) but I don't know so much about the other pages. I'm thinking a main page with subpages. Could put it on one page, but there'd be a fair amount of content.--Ryo Sangnoir 22:12, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Okay, here's a quick draft of what the section could possibly look like: *Editing Guidelines (Brief, general things like grammar, tips, etc. and links to subsections) **Image Nomenclature **Card Pages/Templates **Deck Building/Submission (and templates) **A site-mapish explanation of the current organizational structure - where any new pages should go and such I think that would be a reasonable "Editing Help/Standards" mini-section. Anakin2177 23:07, November 9, 2011 (UTC)